EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy: analysis of its efficacy to drain inaccessible pancreatic ducts

Current status and future perspectives for endoscopic treatment of local complications in chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is a progressive disease characterized by irregular fibrosis, cellular infiltration, and parenchymal loss within the pancreas. Chronic pancreatitis treatment includes lifestyle modifications based on disease etiology, dietary adjustments appropriate for each stage and condition, drug therapy, endoscopic treatments, and surgical treatments. Although surgical treatments of symptomatic chronic pancreatitis provide good pain relief, endoscopic therapies are recommended as the first-line treatment because they are minimally invasive. In recent years, endoscopic therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment method to surgery for managing local complications in patients with chronic pancreatitis. For pancreatic stone removal, a combination of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic extraction is used. For refractory pancreatic duct stones, intracorporeal fragmentation techniques, such as pancreatoscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy, offer additional options. Interventional endoscopic ultrasound has become the primary treatment modality for pancreatic pseudocysts, except in the absence of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. This review focuses on the current status of endoscopic therapies for common local complications of chronic pancreatitis, including updated information in the past few years.

Endoscopic pancreatogastric anastomosis in the treatment of symptoms associated with inflammatory diseases of the pancreas

BACKGROUND

The outflow of pancreatic juice into the duodenum is often impaired in pancreatic inflammatory diseases. The basis of interventional treatment in these cases is anatomical transpapillary access of the main pancreatic duct during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), which ensures the physiological outflow of pancreatic juice into the lumen of the digestive tract. However, in some patients, anatomical changes prevent transpapillary drainage of the main pancreatic duct. Surgery is the treatment of choice in such cases.

AIM

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endoscopic pancreaticogastrostomy under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of treatment outcomes of all patients with acute or chronic pancreatitis who underwent endoscopic pancreatogastric anastomosis under EUS guidance in 2018-2023 at the Department of General, Gastroenterological and Oncological Surgery, Ludwik Rydygier Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland.

RESULTS

In 9 patients [7 men, 2 women; mean age 53.45 (36-66) years], endoscopic pancreatogastric anastomosis under EUS guidance was performed because of the lack of transpapillary access during ERCP. Narrowing of the main pancreatic duct at the head of the pancreas was observed in 4/9 patients (44.44%). Pancreatic fragmentation (disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome) was diagnosed in 3/9 patients (33.33%). In 2/9 patients (22.22%), narrowing of the pancreatoenteric anastomosis was observed after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Technical success of endoscopic pancreaticogastrostomy was observed in 8/9 patients (88.89%). Endotherapeutic complications were observed in 2/9 patients (22.22%). Clinical success was achieved in 8/9 patients (88.89%). The mean follow-up period was 451 (42-988) d. Long-term success of endoscopic pancreatogastric anastomosis was achieved in 7/9 patients (77.78%).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic pancreaticogastrostomy under EUS guidance is an effective and safe treatment method, especially in the absence of transpapillary access to the main pancreatic duct.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a method of decompressing the pancreatic duct (PD) if unable to access the papilla or surgical anastomosis, particularly in nonsurgical candidates. The 2 types of EUS-PDD are EUS-assisted pancreatic rendezvous (EUS-PRV) and EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (EUS-PG). EUS-PRV should be considered in patients with accessible papilla or anastomosis, while EUS-PG is a comparable alternative in surgically altered foregut anatomy. While technical and clinical successes range from 79% to 100%, adverse events occur in approximately 20%. A multidisciplinary approach that considers the patient's anatomy, clinical indication, and long-term goals should be discussed with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct interventions: A single tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) is one of the most technically challenging procedures. There remains a knowledge gap due to its rarity. The aim is to report the accumulated EUS-PDI experience in a tertiary center.

METHODS

Single tertiary center, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data during the study period, from January 2013 to June 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 14 patients (85% male; mean age, 61 years, range 37-81) and 25 EUS-PDI procedures for unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) were included. Principal etiology was chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct obstruction (78%). EUS-guided assisted (colorant and/or guidewire, rendezvous) ERP was performed in 14/25 (56%); and transmural drainage in 11 procedures, including pancreaticogastrosmy in 9/25 (36%) and pancreaticoduodenostomy in 2/25 (8%). Overall technical and clinical success was 78.5% (11/14). Three (21%) patients required a second procedure with success in all cases. Two failed cases required surgery. Three (21%) adverse events (AEs) were noted (fever, n=1; perforation, n=1; pancreatitis, n=1). Patients underwent a median of 58 months (range 24-108) follow-up procedures for re-stenting. Spontaneous stent migration was detected in 50% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-PDI is an effective salvage therapy for unsuccessful ERP, although 21% of patients may still experience AEs. In case of EUS-guided rendezvous failure, it can cross over to a transmural drainage.

Feasibility and safety of a novel plastic stent designed specifically for endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) is emerging as an effective alternative treatment for obstructive pancreatitis after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). However, the high incidence of adverse events associated with EUS-PD (approximately 20%) remains an issue. Recently, we developed a novel plastic stent for EUS-PD, with a radiopaque marker positioned at approximately one-third of the length from the distal end of the stent and side holes positioned exclusively distal to the marker. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of using this stent in EUS-PD. Patients and methods We retrospectively reviewed data from 10 patients who underwent EUS-PD with the novel plastic stent at the National Cancer Center Hospital between March 2021 and October 2023. Technical and clinical success, procedure times, adverse events (AEs), recurrent pancreatic duct obstruction (RPO), and time to RPO were assessed. Results Of the 10 patients, five had postoperative benign pancreaticojejunal anastomotic strictures and five had malignant pancreatic duct obstruction. The technical and clinical success rates were both 100% (10/10). An AE (self-limited abdominal pain) occurred in one patient (10.0%). Two patients (20.0%) died of their primary disease during the follow-up period (median, 44 days; range, 25-272 days). The incidence of RPO was 10.0% (1/10), and the 3-month non-RPO rate was 83.3%. Conclusions The novel plastic stent shows potential as a useful and safe tool in EUS-PD.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Interventions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic duct drainage is one of the most challenging procedures in therapeutic endoscopy. Technical success is lower than for other therapeutic EUS procedures. However, when successful in a clear clinical indication, this procedure can offer a useful therapeutic alternative and improves the overall clinical success of the endoscopic approach. Current challenges include the standardization of clinical indications and of the techniques used for accessing the pancreatic duct, the strategy for mid-term and long-term management, and definition of the scope of the training that should be offered to a few highly experienced endoscopists.

Changing trends in the minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is a debilitating pancreatic inflammatory disease characterized by intractable pain resulting in poor quality of life. Conventional management of pancreatic pain consists of a step-up approach with medications and lifestyle modifications followed by endoscopic intervention. Traditionally surgery is reserved for patients who do not improve with other interventions. However, recent studies suggest that early surgical intervention is more beneficial as it can mitigate the progression of the pathological process and prevent loss of pancreatic function. Despite the widespread adoption of minimally invasive approaches in various gastrointestinal surgical disorders, minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis is slow to evolve. Technical difficulty due to severe inflammatory changes has been the major impediment to the widespread usage of minimally invasive surgery in chronic pancreatitis. With this background, the present review aimed to critically analyze the available evidence on the minimally invasive treatment of chronic pancreatitis. A Pub Med search of all relevant articles was performed using the appropriate keywords, parentheses, and Boolean operators. Most initial laparoscopic series have reported the feasibility of lateral pancreaticojejunostomy, considered an adequate procedure only in a small proportion of patients. The pancreatic head is the pacemaker of pain, so adequate decompression is critical for long-term pain relief. Recent studies have documented the feasibility of minimally invasive duodenum-preserving pancreatic head resection. With improvements in laparoscopic instrumentation and technological advances, minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis is gaining momentum. However, more high-quality evidence is required to document the superiority of minimally invasive surgery for chronic pancreatitis.

Multicenter retrospective cohort of EUS-guided anterograde pancreatic duct access

Background and study aims  Pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation may be difficult during conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) due to underlying pathology, anatomical variants or surgically altered anatomy. Pancreatic access in these cases previously necessitated percutaneous or surgical approaches. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allows for an alternative and can be combined with ERCP for rendezvous during the same procedure, or for other salvage options. Patients and methods  Patients with attempted EUS access of the PD from tertiary referral centers between 2009 and 2022 were included in the cohort. Demographic data, technical data, procedural outcomes and adverse events were collected. The primary outcome was rendezvous success. Secondary outcomes included rates of successful PD decompression and change in procedural success over time. Results  The PD was accessed in 105 of 111 procedures (95 %), with successful subsequent ERCP in 45 of 95 attempts (47 %). Salvage direct PD stenting was performed in 5 of 14 attempts (36 %). Sixteen patients were scheduled for direct PD stenting (without rendezvous) with 100 % success rate. Thus 66 patients (59 %) had successful decompression. Success rates improved from 41 % in the first third of cases to 76 % in the final third. There were 13 complications (12 %), including post-procedure pancreatitis in seven patients (6 %). Conclusions  EUS-guided anterograde pancreas access is a feasible salvage method if retrograde access fails. The duct can be cannulated, and drainage can be achieved in the majority of cases. Success rates improve over time. Future research may involve investigation into technical, patient and procedural factors contributing to rendezvous success.

Techniques and Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided-Pancreatic Duct Drainage (EUS- PDD)

Endoscopic ultrasound guided-pancreatic duct drainage (EUS- PDD) is one of the most technically challenging procedures for the interventional endoscopist. The most common indications for EUS- PDD are patients with main pancreatic duct obstruction who have failed conventional endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) drainage or those with surgically altered anatomy. EUS- PDD can be performed via two approaches: the EUS-rendezvous (EUS- RV) or the EUS-transmural drainage (TMD) techniques. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated review of the techniques and equipment available for EUS- PDD and the outcomes of EUS- PDD reported in the literature. Recent developments and future directions surrounding the procedure will also be discussed.

Laparoscopic revision of duct-to-mucosa pancreaticojejunostomy anastomotic stricture after laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy

PURPOSE

Pancreaticojejunostomy stricture (PJS) is an uncommon late complication of laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy (LPD). The incidence, clinical characteristics, and managements of PJS after LPD are still unreported.

METHODS

All patients undergoing LPD between January 2015 and December 2019 were identified from an institutional database. All pancreaticojejunostomies were performed using Bing's duct-to-mucosa anastomosis. PJS was diagnosed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance cholangio-pancreatography with secretin administration. Re-operation was performed in those patients with persistent abdominal pain and/or recurrent pancreatitis. Patients' demographic characteristics, perioperative outcomes, and follow-up outcomes were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

During the 5-year study period, 506 cases of LPD were performed. Among these patients, 13 patients (2.6%) were diagnosed with PJS. Only seven patients presented with abdominal pain and/or recurrent pancreatitis and underwent re-operation. The interval between the diagnosis of PJS and the original operation was 23 months. The median operative time was 140 min (range 90 to 210 min). The estimated blood loss was 40 ml (range 10 to 100 ml). The post-operative outcomes were favorable. Only one patient suffered from biochemical fistula. Six of these 7 patients (85.7%) reported complete pain resolution after the re-operation. The other patient reported partial resolution after surgery. All patients did not need to take analgesic drugs after the operation.

CONCLUSION

PJS following LPD is a late complication that was underestimated. It is technically safe and clinically effective to perform laparoscopic revision of the PJS after LPD.

Current landscape of therapeutic EUS: Changing paradigms in gastroenterology practice

Therapeutic EUS has witnessed exponential growth in the last decade, but it has been considered investigational until recently. An increasing body of good-quality evidence is now demonstrating clear advantages over established alternatives, adding therapeutic EUS to management algorithms of complex hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) and gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. In this review, the available evidence and clinical role of therapeutic EUS in established and evolving applications will be discussed. A Graphical Summary for each scenario will provide (1) technical steps, (2) anatomical sketch, (3) best-supporting evidence, and (4) role in changing current and future GI practice. Therapeutic EUS has accepted well-established applications such as drainage of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections, biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, and treatment of acute cholecystitis in unfit-for-surgery patients. In addition, good-quality evidence on several emerging indications (e.g., treatment of gastric outlet obstruction, local ablation of pancreatic solid lesions, etc.) is promising. Specific emphasis will be given to how these technical innovations have changed management paradigms and algorithms and expanded the possibilities of gastroenterologists to provide therapeutic solutions to old and emerging clinical needs. Therapeutic EUS is cementing its role in everyday practice, radically changing the treatment of different HPB diseases and other conditions (e.g., GI obstruction). The development of dedicated accessories and increased training opportunities will expand the ability of gastroenterologists to deliver highly effective yet minimally invasive therapies, potentially translating into a better quality of life, especially for oncological and fragile patients.

EUS-guided transenteric pancreatic duct drainage

Endoscopic drainage requires transpapillary access to the pancreatic duct during ERCP. When ERCP failed, EUS-guided pancreatico-gastro or bulbostomy and/or rendez-vous technique offers an alternative to surgery. Although data has demonstrated that the procedure can be safe and effective, EUS-guided PD drainage remains one of the most technically challenging therapeutic EUS interventions, as evidenced by the multiple considerations on device selection and the risk of severe complications.

Endoscopic Management of Complications in Chronic Pancreatitis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Management of complications in patients with chronic pancreatitis is often suboptimal. This review discusses detailed endoscopic approaches for managing complications in CP.

LITERATURE FINDINGS

CP is characterized by progressive and irreversible destruction of pancreatic parenchyma and ductal system resulting in fibrosis, scarring, and loss of glandular function. Abdominal pain remains is the most common symptom of the disease and the main aim of medical, endoscopic, and surgical therapy is to help relieve symptoms, prevent disease progression, and manage complications related to CP. In fact, advances in our understanding of CP have improved medical care and quality of life in these patients. With significant sequela, morbidity and a progressive nature, a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology, natural course, diagnostic approaches, and optimal management strategies for this disease is warranted. The existing modalities and new innovations in this field are safe, effective, and likely to have a positive impact on management of complication in CP whenever used in the right context.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

1:  ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound drainage for the management of fluid collections after pancreas surgery

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.

CONCLUSION

EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.

EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct for the treatment of postoperative stenosis of pancreatico-digestive anastomosis or pancreatic duct stenosis complicating chronic pancreatitis: Experience at a tertiary care center

Background and Objectives

For the treatment of pancreatic duct stenosis due to chronic pancreatitis (CP) or postoperative (PO) stenosis, endoscopic procedures are usually the first choice. In cases of failure of the recommended treatment by ERCP, anastomosis between the Wirsung duct and the stomach or duodenum can be performed under EUS guidance. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the outcomes of pancreatico-gastric or pancreaticoduodenal anastomosis under EUS for PO stenosis versus CP stenosis.

Subjects and Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center, consecutive case study of patients who underwent EUS-guided Wirsungo-gastric/bulbar anastomosis.

Results

Forty-three patients were included. Twenty-one patients underwent treatment for PO stenosis, and 22 patients underwent treatment for CP stenosis. The technical success rate was 95.3% (41/43), with 100% in cases of PO stenosis and 90.9% in cases of CP stenosis. The clinical success rate was 72.5% (29/40): 75% (15/20) in cases of PO stenosis and 70% (14/20) in cases of CP stenosis. The overall morbidity rate was 34.9% (15/43). The main complication was postprocedural pain, occurring in 20.9% (9/443) of patients. The rate of stent migration or obstruction was 27.9% (12/43). There was no difference in patient outcomes or morbidity according to the etiology of the stenosis. The median follow-up duration in this study was 14 months.

Conclusions

EUS-guided Wirsungo-gastric/duodenal anastomosis is a feasible, minimally invasive, safe, and relatively effective procedure. The rates of technical success, clinical success, and complications were not different between patients with PO and CP stenosis. However, the follow-up period was too short to assess recurrent symptoms in these patients.

Early and long-term clinical outcomes of endoscopic interventions for benign pancreatic duct stricture/obstruction-the possibility of additional clinical effects of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic drainage

OBJECTIVES

For benign pancreatic duct strictures/obstructions (BPDS/O), endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) is performed when endoscopic transpapillary pancreatic drainage (ETPD) fails. We clarified the clinical outcomes for patients with BPDS/O who underwent endoscopic interventions through the era where EUS-PD was available.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with BPDS/O who underwent ETPD/EUS-PD were included. We retrospectively investigated overall technical and clinical success rates for endoscopic interventions, adverse events, and clinical outcomes after successful endoscopic interventions.

RESULTS

The technical success rates for ETPD and EUS-PD were 77% (35/45) and 80% (8/10), respectively, and the overall technical success rate using two drainage procedures was 91% (41/45). Among the 41 patients who underwent successful endoscopic procedures, the clinical success rates were 97% for the symptomatic patients (35/36). The rates of procedure-related pancreatitis after ETPD and EUS-PD were 13% and 30%, respectively. After successful endoscopic interventions, the cumulative 3-year rate of developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis was calculated to be 27%, and only two patients finally needed surgery. Continuous smoking after endoscopic interventions was shown to be a risk factor for developing recurrent symptoms/pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

By adding EUS-PD to ETPD, the technical success rate for endoscopic interventions for BPDS/O was more than 90%, and the clinical success rate was nearly 100%. Due to the low rate of surgery after endoscopic interventions, including EUS-PD, for patients with BPDS/O, EUS-PD may contribute to their good clinical courses as a salvage treatment for refractory BPDS/O.

EUS guided pancreatic duct decompression in surgically altered anatomy or failed ERCP - A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

EUS-PD (EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage) is classified into two types: EUS-guided rendezvous techniques and EUS-guided PD stenting. Prior studies showed significant variation in terms of technical success, clinical success and adverse events.

METHODS

Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to June 2020, describing pancreatic duct drainage utilizing EUS. Primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success of EUS-PDD and safety of EUS-PD in terms of adverse events. All meta-analysis and meta-regression tests were 2-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test.

RESULTS

A total of sixteen studies (503 patients) described the use of EUS-PD for pancreatic duct decompression yielded a pooled technical success rate was 81.4% (95% CI 72-88.1, I 2 = 74). Meta-regression revealed that proportion of altered anatomy and method of dilation of tract explain the variance. Overall pooled clinical success rate was 84.6% (95% CI 75.4-90.8, I 2 = 50.18). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the type of pancreatic duct decompression, proportion of altered anatomy and follow up time explained the variance. Overall pooled adverse event rate was 21.3% (95% CI 16.8-26.7, I 2 = 36.6). The most common post procedure adverse event was post procedure pain. Overall pooled adverse event rate of post EUS-PD pancreatitis was 5% (95% CI 3.2-7.8, I 2 = 0).

CONCLUSION

The systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression provides answer to the questions of the overall technical success, clinical success and the adverse event rate of EUS-PD by summarizing the available literature.

Safety and efficacy of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage in symptomatic main pancreatic duct obstruction: Is there still a place for surgery?

Background and study aims In patients with symptomatic dilation of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) for whom endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is impossible, surgery has long been the only available treatment. EUS-PD is described as a minimally invasive alternative for ductal decompression surgery. We describe the results of our experience with it.

Patients and methods This was a retrospective single-center study over 9 years. Twenty-seven patients, median age 61.8 years (range 36 to 85) who underwent EUS-PD for symptomatic MPD dilatation were included. The main objective was to evaluate the technical success (placement of a plastic stent between the stomach and the MPD). Secondary objectives were to document clinical success based on pain and quality of life (visual analogic scales and treatments) and complication rates, and to define a standardized management algorithm.

Results The technical success rate was 92.5 %. The rate of minor adverse events was 21 % (4 cases of non-specific postoperative pain and two cases of delayed benign edematous pancreatitis). The clinical success rate was 88 %, and half of patients in whom the procedure was successful had "complete regression" of pain and half "partial regression." Median follow-up was 34.2 months (range 4 to 108). During follow-up, 74 % of patients reported improvement in quality of life and no patients required secondary surgery.

Conclusion Provided it is performed in an expert center, EUS-PD is a minimally invasive, effective, and safe alternative to pancreatic surgical drainage in patients with symptomatic MPD dilatation with failure or in whom ERCP is impossible.

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-guided versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided technique for pancreatic duct cannulation in patients with pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Stenosis of the pancreaticojejunostomy is a well-known long-term complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy. Traditionally, the endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided intervention has emerged as an alternative, but the success rate and adverse event rate of both treatment modalities are poorly known. We aimed to compare the outcome data of both interventions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using the Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases in order to summarize the available data regarding efficacy and complications of ERP- and EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and compare these outcome data using uniform outcome measures in a multilevel logistic model. RESULTS : 13 studies were included, involving 77 patients who underwent ERP-guided drainage, 145 who underwent EUS-guided drainage, and 12 patients who underwent both modalities. An EUS-guided approach was significantly superior to an ERP-guided approach with regard to pancreatic duct opacification (87 % vs. 30 %; P < 0.001), cannulation success (79 % vs. 26 %; P < 0.001), and stent placement (72 % vs. 20 %; P < 0.001). An EUS-guided approach also appeared superior with regard to clinical outcomes such a pain resolution. The adverse event rate between the two treatment modalities could not be compared due to insufficient data. All included studies were found to be of low quality.

CONCLUSION

Based on limited available data, EUS-guided PD intervention appears superior to ERP-guided PD intervention.

EUS-guided pancreatic ductal intervention: A comprehensive literature review

EUS has opened a new frontier in endoscopic techniques for accessing pancreatic ducts in patients with failed ERCP. The major indications of EUS-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) are main pancreatic duct (MPD) strictures due to chronic pancreatitis or strictures of pancreaticojejunal or pancreaticogastric anastomosis after Whipple resection, which lead to recurrent acute pancreatitis. EUS-guided pancreaticogastro or duodenostomy offers an alternative to surgery when transpapillary drainage fails or is not possible. We provide an expert commentary and a brief overview on this relatively novel technique utilizing EUS-PDI creation in patients with impaired drainage of the MPD who have failed other conventional endoscopic techniques for MPD drainage and either are poor surgical candidates or are reluctant to undergo surgery.

Which Are the Most Suitable Stents for Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions provide easy access to structures adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract, effectively targeting them for therapeutic purposes. They play an important role in the management of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) and bile duct (BD) and pancreatic duct (PD) drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or gallbladder (GB) drainage. Specially designed stents and delivery systems for EUS-guided transluminal interventions allow various new applications and improve the efficacy and safety of these procedures. In fact, EUS-guided drainage has emerged as the treatment of choice for the management of PFC, and recent innovations such as fully covered metal stents (including lumen-apposing metal stents) have improved outcomes in patients with walled-off necrosis. Similarly, EUS-guided BD and PD drainage with specially designed stents can be beneficial for patients with failed ERCP due to an inaccessible papilla, gastric outlet obstruction, or surgically altered anatomy. EUS-guided GB drainage is also performed using dedicated stents in patients with acute cholecystitis who are not fit for surgery. Although the field of dedicated stents for interventional EUS is rapidly advancing with increasing innovations, the debate on the most appropriate stent for EUS-guided drainage has resurfaced. Furthermore, some important questions remain unaddressed, such as which stent improves clinical outcomes and safety in EUS-guided drainage. Herein, the current status and problems of the available stents are reviewed, including the applicable indications, long-term clinical outcomes, comparison between each stent, and their future prospects.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 714 patients

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a minimal-invasive therapeutic option to surgery and in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). The aim of this review was to quantitatively appraise the clinical outcomes of EUS-PDD by meta-analysis methods. Methods  We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2020 to identify studies that reported on EUS-PDD. Pooled rates of technical success, successful drainage of pancreatic duct, clinical success, and adverse events were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I ² % and 95 % prediction interval. Results  A total of 22 studies (714 patients) were included. The pooled rate of technical success in EUS-PDD was 84.8 % (95 % CI 79.1-89.2). The pooled rate of successful PD drained by EUS-PDD was 77.5 % (95 % CI 63.1-87.4). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-PDD was 89.2 % (95 % CI 82.1-93.7). The pooled rate of all adverse events was 18.1 % (95 % CI 14.2-22.9). On sub-group analysis, the pooled technical success and clinical success of EUS-PDD from Japanese data were considerably superior (91.2 %, 83-95.6 & 92.5 %, 83.9-96.7, respectively). The pooled rate of post EUS-PDD acute pancreatitis was 6.6 % (95 % CI 4.5-9.4), bleeding was 4.1 % (95 % CI 2.7-6.2), perforation and/or pneumoperitoneum was 3.1 % (95 % CI 1.9-5), pancreatic leak and/or pancreatic fluid collection was 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.4-4), and infection was 2.8 % (95 % CI 1.7-4.6). Conclusion  EUS-PDD demonstrates high technical success and clinical success rates with acceptable adverse events. Technical success was especially high for anastomotic strictures.

Endoscopic endgame for obstructive pancreatopathy: outcomes of anterograde EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage. A dual-center study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Anterograde endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) refers to transmural drainage of the main pancreatic duct via an endoprosthesis passed anterograde through the gastric (or intestinal) wall. Anterograde EUS-PDD is a rescue procedure for recalcitrant cases of benign obstructive pancreatopathy.

METHODS

We conducted a dual-center retrospective chart review of 28 patients (mean age, 59 years; 50% female) who underwent attempted anterograde EUS-PDD between April 2016 and September 2019 for chronic pancreatitis (CP) (93%) or pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis (PJS) after Whipple resection (7%). The study endpoint was achievement of transpapillary/transanastomotic drainage (definitive therapy).

RESULTS

Gastropancreaticoenterostomy (ring drainage, definitive therapy) was successfully performed during the index procedure in the 2 patients with PJS (technical success, 100%). Clinical success was 100% in the 2 ring drainage recipients during a mean 18-month follow-up period. The remaining 26 patients with CP underwent attempted pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) with 81% technical success, 75% clinical success, and 15% adverse events (AEs). Repeat endoscopic transmural interventions were performed in the 15 patients with clinical success after PG creation. Definitive therapy transpired in all 15 patients after a median 1 repeat procedure per patient. Clinical success after definitive therapy was maintained in all 15 patients (100%) during a median 4.5-month follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

In agreement with previous studies, our study showed mild to moderately high rates of technical failure (19%), clinical failure (25%), and AEs (15%) during index drainage (PG creation). Among patients with CP with both technical and clinical success after index PG creation (n = 15), 100% definitive therapy was achieved and clinical outcomes were excellent (100% clinical success, 0% AEs).

International consensus guidelines on interventional endoscopy in chronic pancreatitis. Recommendations from the working group for the international consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with the International Association of Pancreatology, the American Pancreatic Association, the Japan Pancreas Society, and European Pancreatic Club

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This paper is part of the international consensus guidelines on chronic pancreatitis, presenting for interventional endoscopy.

METHODS

An international working group with experts on interventional endoscopy evaluated 26 statements generated from evidence on 9 clinically relevant questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the level of evidence. To determine the level of agreement, a nine-point Likert scale was used for voting on the statements.

RESULTS

Strong consensus was obtained for 15 statements relating to nine questions including the recommendation that endoscopic intervention should be offered to patients with persistent severe pain but not to those without pain. Endoscopic decompression of the pancreatic duct could be used for immediate pain relief, and then offered surgery if this fails or needs repeated endoscopy. Endoscopic drainage is preferred for portal-splenic vein thrombosis and pancreatic fistula. A plastic stent should be placed and replaced 2-3 months later after insertion. Endoscopic extraction is indicated for stone fragments remaining after ESWL. Interventional treatment should be performed for symptomatic/complicated pancreatic pseudocysts. Endoscopic treatment is recommended for bile duct obstruction and afterwards surgery if this fails or needs repeated endoscopy. Surgery may be offered if there is significant calcification and/or mass of the pancreatic head. Percutaneous endovascular treatment is preferred for hemosuccus pancreaticus. Surgical treatment is recommended for duodenal stenosis due to chronic pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

This international expert consensus guideline provides evidenced-based statements concerning indications and key aspects for interventional endoscopy in the management of patients with chronic pancreatitis.

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage: A steep learning curve

Background and Objective:

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) is an efficacious, acceptable risk option for patients with pancreatic duct obstruction who fail conventional ERCP. The aim of this study was to define the learning curve (LC) for EUS-PD.

Methods:

Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-PD by a single operator were included from a dedicated registry. Demographics, procedural info, adverse events, and follow-up data were collected. Nonlinear regression and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses were conducted for the LC.

Results:

Fifty-six patients were included (54% of male, with a mean age of 58 years). Technical success was achieved in 47 patients (84%). Stent placement was antegrade in 36 patients (77%) and retrograde in 11 (23%). Clinical success was achieved in 46/47 (98%) patients who achieved technical success. Adverse events were seen in 13 patients (6 of whom did not achieve technical success) and included bleeding requiring embolization (n = 5), bleeding treated with clips peri-procedurally (n = 1), pancreatitis (n = 5), and a pancreatic fluid collection drained via EUS-drainage (n = 2). The median procedural time was 80 min (range 49–159 min). The CUSUM chart showed that 80-min procedural time was achieved at the 27^th procedure. Durations further reduced 40^th procedure onward, reaching a plateau indicating proficiency (nonlinear regression P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Endoscopists experienced in EUS-PD are expected to achieve a reduction in procedural time over successive cases, with efficiency reached at 80 min and a learning rate of 27 cases. Continued improvement is demonstrated with additional experience, with plateau indicating mastery suggested at the 40^th case. EUS-PD is probably one of the hardest therapeutic endosonographic procedures to learn.

Long-term outcome of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage using a fully covered self-expandable metal stent for pancreaticojejunal anastomosis stricture

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) has been proposed for pancreatic duct obstruction after failure of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. We evaluate the long-term outcomes of EUS-PD using a fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) for pancreaticojejunal anastomosis (PJA) strictures following Whipple procedures.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with PJA strictures underwent EUS-PD according to the findings of EUS-guided pancreatogram and the passage of the guidewire through PJA stricture (complete vs partial stricture) after failure of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography. Technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and long-term outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Technical and clinical success was achieved in all patients. The complete and partial strictures were 11 and 12, respectively. The direct transanastomotic and transmural plastic stenting in partial PJA stricture was successful in only three patients (13%). Therefore, 20 patients underwent EUS-guided transmural FCSEMS placement during the initial attempt. Early AEs, including abdominal pain (n = 3) and peripancreatic fluid collection (n = 1), occurred in four patients (17.4%). During the follow-up periods (median, 27.2 months; interquartile range [IQR], 18.7-40.6), five patients (21.7%) developed late AEs, including asymptomatic stent fracture at the gastric end (n = 3), asymptomatic stent migration (n = 1), and stent occlusion (n = 1). The total duration of stent placement was 27.2 months (IQR, 18.7-40.6), and the median number of stent revision was 2 (IQR, 1-2).

CONCLUSIONS

In terms of safety and efficacy, EUS-PD with an FCSEMS showed favorable success and acceptable AEs rate and durable long-term outcomes.

Six-year retrospective analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic ductal interventions at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic ductal intervention (EUS-PDI) serves as a rescue therapy in patients with failure of retrograde access to the pancreatic duct (PD) at the time of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). We review our experience of this procedure.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent EUS-PDI for an unsuccessful ERP and altered anatomy.

RESULTS

A total of 44 (65.9% male) patients underwent EUS-PDI with a mean age of 43.5 years, (range: 23-67). Transgastric rendezvous technique was carried out in 23/44 (52.3%), transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy in 18/44 (40.9%) and transduodenal pancreaticobulbostomy in 3/44 (6.8%). Overall technical and clinical success was seen in 88.6% (39/44) and 81.8% (36/44), respectively. Technical success of transgastric rendezvous was 95.6% and that of transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy was 77.8%. Two of seven patients with failure to access the PD had successfully undergone EUS-PD stenting at subsequent attempt. Ten immediate adverse events (AE) were noted which included abdominal pain (n = 4), pancreatitis (n = 2), fever (n = 2), minor bleeding (n = 1), and stripping of wire (n = 1). Delayed AE included stent blockage in 12/39 (30.8%) and spontaneous stent migration in 5/39 (12.8%) which were managed with stent exchange at follow up. The rendezvous technique was associated with fewer AE than transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasonography-PDI is an effective treatment modality and salvage therapy in patients with unsuccessful ERP. Technical and clinical success seen with this study is comparable to studies conducted across the world. EUS-PDI needs to show cost-effectiveness in future studies.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention and pancreaticogastrostomy using a novel cross-platform technique with small-caliber devices

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (PG) has been used as an alternative to surgery to drain pancreatic ducts for treatment of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS). Previous techniques involved using needle-knife cautery, bougie dilation or a stent extraction screw to allow stent passage through the gastric wall and pancreatic parenchyma, with potential for severe complications including duct leak, especially if drainage fails. A novel technique employing EUS guided puncture of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) with a 19- or a 22-gauge needle, passage of an 0.018-guidewire, dilation of the tract with a small-diameter (4 F) angioplasty balloon and placement of 3F plastic stents with the pigtail curled inside the duct as an anchor. Methods  This is a retrospective case series at a single tertiary center. EUS-guided PG was considered when conventional endoscopic pancreatic duct drainage failed. Main outcomes included technical and clinic success and complications. Results  Eight patients underwent PG. Indications were DPDS (n = 4), stenotic pancreaticoenteral anastomosis after Whipple procedure (n = 3) and chronic pancreatitis with dilated MPD (n = 1). Median MPD diameter was 6.75 mm [IQR 2.8 - 7.6]. Technical success was achieved in seven of eight cases (88 %); angioplasty balloon passed into the pancreatic duct in all accessed ducts. There was one asymptomatic duct leak, and no major or delayed complications, with clinical improvement (complete or partial) in five of eight (71 %). Conclusions  EUS-guided PG using a small-caliber guidewire, 4F angioplasty balloon, and reverse 3F single pigtail stents offers a safe and atraumatic alternative without use of cautery.

Anterograde Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage: A Technical Review

The advancement of pancreatic endotherapy has increased the availability of minimally invasive endoscopic pancreatic ductal drainage techniques. In this regard, familiarity with endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is critical for treatment of obstructed pancreatic ductal systems, especially in nonsurgical candidates and in patients desiring a minimally invasive approach. Two distinct forms of EUS-PDD exist, viz. rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (rendezvous-assisted ERP) and anterograde EUS-PDD. Anterograde EUS-PDD refers to transmural anterograde passage of a pancreatic drainage catheter or stent directly into the main pancreatic duct, through either the gastric or enteral wall. Rendezvous-assisted ERP should be attempted after failed conventional ERP, and anterograde EUS-PDD should be considered if rendezvous-assisted ERP fails or is not technically feasible. Common clinical scenarios that fulfil these conditions are chronic pancreatitis with high-grade main pancreatic duct obstruction, surgically altered anatomy with ductal/anastomotic obstruction, pancreas divisum, and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. The focus of this review article is anterograde EUS-PDD and its indications, technique, and outcomes. It also provides a summary of our own experience with this procedure, and a video demonstration of the technique.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Endoscopic transpapillary or transanastomotic pancreatic duct drainage (PD) is the mainstay of drainage in symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction or leakage. However, transpapillary or transanastomotic PD can be technically difficult due to the tight stricture or surgically altered anatomy (SAA), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PD (EUS-PD) is now increasingly used as an alternative technique. There are two approaches in EUS-PD: EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD). In cases with normal anatomy, EUS-RV should be the first approach, whereas EUS-TMD can be selected in cases with SAA or duodenal obstruction. In our literature review, technical success and adverse event rates were 78.7% and 21.8%, respectively. The technical success rate of EUS-RV appeared lower than EUS-TMD due to the difficulty in guidewire passage. In future, development of dedicated devices and standardization of EUS-PD procedure are necessary.

Updates in Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasonography

The last decade has seen a dramatic rise in the possibilities of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). From EUS fine needle aspiration of cancerous lesion to pseudocyst drainage, it has now not only replaced some of the percutaneous techniques but has permitted to bypass all together laparoscopic approach for patient with altered anatomy or malignant gastric outlet obstruction. This review will emphasize the novel therapeutic EUS procedures added to our arsenal.

Evaluation of a new stent for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: long-term follow-up outcome

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

 Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PD) has been reported as an alternative for failed conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, there are few dedicated devices for EUS-PD. Recently, we have developed a new plastic stent dedicated to EUS-PD and have conducted a feasibility study to evaluate its efficacy. In the current study, we evaluated the long-term efficacy of this new plastic stent.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

 Thirty patients (61 ± 14.3 years old, 14 men) with acute recurrent pancreatitis caused by a stricture in the main pancreatic duct (MPD) or stenotic pancreatoenterostomy were treated at our institution using our recently developed 7Fr plastic stent between August 2013 and April 2017.

RESULTS

 The stent was placed successfully in all patients (30/30) and early clinical success was achieved in all of them. Early adverse events (AEs) occurred in seven patients (23.3 %), namely, self-limited abdominal pain (n = 5), mild pancreatitis (n = 1), and bleeding which required transcatheter arterial embolization (n = 1). Two patients died of primary disease and three were lost to follow-up. The remaining 25 patients were followed up after initial EUS-PD for a median of 23 months (range, 6 - 44 months). Twenty patients required regular stent exchange (3 times; range, 1 - 12 times). Spontaneous stent dislodgement was observed in six patients. Four patients wanted their stents removed 1 year after the initial intervention. Twelve patients (48 %) had regular stent exchange 1 year after the initial intervention. Three patients converted to standard transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting by conventional ERCP. Finally, nine patients (36 %) had complete stent removal either intentionally or by spontaneous dislodgement without any symptoms.

CONCLUSION

 The new plastic stent for EUS-PD was associated with not only short-term technical success but also long-term clinical success in the majority of patients evaluated in this study.

Safety and Complications of Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential tool for the diagnostic and therapeutic intervention of gastrointestinal diseases. Beyond the drainage of fluid collections, it enables decompression of inaccessible bile and pancreatic ducts, the gallbladder, and the creation of anastomosis within the gastrointestinal tract using fully lumen-apposing stents. This review explored the safety and efficacy of these novel procedures and discussed the training pathway that is necessary to perform them efficiently and safely.

EUS-Guided Transluminal Interventions

The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has transitioned from a diagnostic to a therapeutic one over the past 40 years. With the advent of curvilinear array echoendoscopes in the 1990s with an accessory channel, multiple tools and devices have been developed and used for a variety of transluminal interventions. EUS provides a viable option and is becoming the procedure of choice for many interventions, including bile and pancreatic duct drainage, guiding angiotherapy, pancreatic fluid collection management, gallbladder drainage, and creating a gastrojejunostomy. Although reports demonstrate the technical success of these interventions, there is tremendous study heterogeneity and a relative lack of controlled randomized trials, which may limit our understanding of their role and utility. Furthermore, adverse events are relatively common and occasionally severe. Despite the limitations, available data strongly indicate the efficacy of EUS interventions when performed by well-trained endosonographers in carefully selected patients and managed in a multidisciplinary setting.

Pancreatic Leaks and Fistulae: An Endoscopy-Oriented Classification

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic leaks occur as a complication of upper gastrointestinal surgery, acute pancreatitis, or abdominal trauma. Pancreatic fistulas and leaks are primarily managed conservatively. Overall, conservative measures are successful in more than half of cases. Whenever conservative treatment is not efficient, surgery is usually considered the treatment of choice. Nowadays however, endoscopic treatment is being increasingly considered and employed in many cases, as a surgery sparing intervention.

AIM

To introduce a classification of pancreatic fistulas according to the location of the leak and ductal anatomy and finally propose the best suited endoscopic method to treat the leak according to current literature.

METHODS

We performed an extensive review of the literature on pancreatic fistulae and leaks.

RESULTS

In this paper, we review the various types of leaks and propose a novel endoscopic classification of pancreatic fistulas in order to standardize and improve endoscopic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A proper and precise diagnosis should be made before embarking on endoscopic treatment for pancreatic leaks in order to obtain prime therapeutic results. A multidisciplinary team of interventional endoscopists, pancreatic surgeons, and interventional radiologists is best suited to care for these patients.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Techniques for Accessing and Draining the Biliary System and the Pancreatic Duct

When endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails to decompress the biliary system or the pancreatic duct, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary or pancreatic access and drainage can be used. Data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS-guided biliary drainage. The outcomes of EUS-guided biliary drainage seem equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP, whereas only retrospective studies are available for pancreatic duct drainage. In this article, revision of the technical and clinical status and the current evidence of interventional EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic duct access and drainage are presented.

Percutaneous Image-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage: Technique, Results and Expected Benefits

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to provide a technical detail and feasibility of percutaneous image-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and to discuss its subtleties in a series of patients with obstructed PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients presenting with PD obstruction from pancreatic head tumour or pancreatitis were subjected to percutaneous image-guided PD drainage under a guidance of ultrasound or computed tomography. Following the successful puncture of PD, a locking loop drainage catheter was placed using conventional guidewire techniques under real-time fluoroscopy guidance.

RESULTS

The percutaneous drainage of obstructed PD was completed in 29 (96.7%) patients as an independent therapeutic intent or as a bridge to further percutaneous procedures. Clinical improvement following drainage was documented by the gradual reduction in clinical symptoms, including pain, nausea and fever and improved blood test results, showing the significant decrease of amylase concentration. The amount of pancreatic fluid drained post procedure was between 300 and 900 mL/day. No major procedure-related complications were observed. Subsequently, 14 of 29 patients underwent further procedures, including endoluminal placement of metal stent with or without radiofrequency ablation, balloon assisted percutaneous descending litholapaxy (BAPDL), endoluminal biopsy and balloon dilatation using the same drainage tract.

CONCLUSION

The percutaneous PD drainage appears to be a safe and effective procedure. It should be considered in patients with obstructed PD secondary to malignancy, pancreatitis etc., where endoscopic retrograde cannulation has been failed or impracticable. The procedure can also be contemplated either as an independent treatment option or as an initial step for the subsequent therapeutic endoluminal procedures.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography: Where are we headed?

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is an essential endoscopic tool within the diagnostic and therapeutic armamentarium of gastrointestinal and hepatic diseases. EUS-guided tissue acquisition will develop towards facilitating personalized treatment by obtaining large representative tissue specimens for elaborate immunohistochemical and biomolecular typing of the tumor. Intratumoral or intravascular delivery of drugs potentially offers many advantages over systemic injection. Intratumoral application of radiofrequency ablation and photodynamic therapy show promise but need to be explored further. Appositioning and connecting luminal structures within the gastrointestinal tract using fully covered expandable lumen-apposing stents will expand its indication far beyond the drainage of (infected) fluid collections and EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy is a particularly exciting development that could have significant impact on the management of gastric outlet obstruction.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary and pancreatic duct interventions

Drainage of obstructed bile duct and pancreatic duct under endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) guidance has evolved into viable techniques suitable for patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and/or altered surgical anatomy. One of the major advantages of EUS guidance is the possibility of multiple access points depending upon patient and ductal anatomy. Unlike ERCP, an approachable papilla is not a requisite for successful EUS-guided biliary or pancreatic ductal drainage. Moreover, as the access is away from the papilla, there is the possibility of reduced pancreatitis. A variety of procedures have become available for EUS-guided drainage, and it is important to develop standard terminology and procedural details. EUS-specific stents, including lumen-apposing metal stents have recently become available, and are likely to impact the outcomes of these procedures. Available data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS-guided biliary drainage. Success rate appears to be low for pancreatic duct drainage because of a variety of reasons. Outcomes of EUS-guided biliary drainage appear equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage appears promising for patients requiring gallbladder drainage but unfit for surgery. Further large controlled studies are needed to evaluate the exact role of these procedures.

An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management of post-Whipple pancreatic adverse events (AEs) with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (e-ERP) is associated with high failure rates. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) has shown promising results; however, no comparative data have been done for these 2 modalities. The goal of this study is to compare EUS-PDD with e-ERP in terms of technical success (PDD through dilation/stent), clinical success (improvement/resolution of pancreatic-type symptoms), and AE rates in patients with post-Whipple anatomy.

METHODS

This is an international multicenter comparative retrospective study at 7 tertiary centers (2 United States, 2 European, 2 Asian, and 1 South American). All consecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or e-ERP between January 2010 and August 2015 were included.

RESULTS

In total, 66 patients (mean age, 57 years; 48% women) and 75 procedures were identified with 40 in EUS-PDD and 35 in e-ERP. Technical success was achieved in 92.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 20% of procedures in the e-ERP group (OR, 49.3; P < .001). Clinical success (per patient) was attained in 87.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 23.1% in the e-ERP group (OR, 23.3; P < .001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-PDD group (35% vs 2.9%, P < .001). However, all AEs were rated as mild or moderate. Procedure time and length of stay were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-PDD is superior to e-ERP in post-Whipple anatomy in terms of efficacy with acceptable safety. As such, EUS-PDD should be considered as a potential first-line treatment in post-pancreaticoduodenectomy anatomy when necessary expertise is available.

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for pancreatic strictures after failed ERCP: a multicenter international collaborative study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is considered first-line therapy for management of symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction. Technical failure with ERP occurs when the main pancreatic duct cannot be cannulated. EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct is a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for failed conventional ERP. We present an international, multicenter study on the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) for patients who fail conventional endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2015, 80 patients underwent EUS-PD at 4 academic centers in 3 countries. Patient demographics, medical history, procedure data, and follow-up clinical data were collected. Technical success was defined as successful pancreatic duct drainage with stent placement. Clinical success was defined as resolution or improvement of symptoms or improvement on postprocedure imaging.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (62.5% men; mean age, 58.2 ± 15.5 years) were included. All patients had attempted ERP and/or extracorporeal lithotripsy if needed before EUS-PD. Technical success was achieved in 89% of patients (n = 71). Clinical success was achieved in 81% of patients overall (65/80) and in 92% of patients who achieved technical success (65/71). Immediate adverse events occurred in 20% of patients (n = 16) and delayed adverse events occurred in 11% of patients (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate endoscopic expertise, EUS-PD offers a minimally invasive, more effective, and safer alternative to some surgical PD procedures. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01522573.).

Challenges of Endoscopic Management of Pancreaticobiliary Complications in Surgically Altered Gastrointestinal Anatomy

Pancreaticobiliary complications following various surgical procedures, including liver transplantation, are not uncommon and are important causes of morbidity and mortality. Therapeutic endoscopy plays a substantial role in these patients and can help to avoid the need for reoperation. However, the endoscopic approach in patients with surgically altered gastrointestinal (GI) anatomy is technically challenging because of the difficulty in entering the enteral limb to reach the target orifice to manage pancreaticobiliary complications. Additional procedural complexity is due to the need of special devices and accessories to obtain successful cannulation and absence of an elevator in forward-viewing endoscopes, which is frequently used in this situation. Once bilioenteric anastomosis is reached, the technical success rates achieved in expert hands approach those of patients with intact GI anatomy. The success of endoscopic therapy in patients with surgically altered GI anatomy depends on multiple factors, including the expertise of the endoscopist, understanding of postoperative anatomic changes, and the availability of suitable scopes and accessories for endoscopic management. In this issue of Clinical Endoscopy, the focused review series deals with pancreatobiliary endoscopy in altered GI anatomy such as bilioenteric anastomosis and post-gastrectomy.

Endoscopic characteristics and usefulness of endoscopic dilatation of anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy: case series and a review of the literature

The incidence of pancreatitis induced by anastomotic stricture following pancreaticodigestive tract anastomosis as a late-onset adverse event has been reported to be 3% or lower, but some cases repeatedly relapse and are difficult to treat. Endoscopic identification and treatment of the anastomotic site are considered to be difficult, and only a small number of cases have been reported. We present three cases with recurrent pancreatitis induced by anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy applied after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We successfully identified the anastomotic site and performed endoscopic dilatation of the anastomotic stricture, and pancreatitis has not recurred. We characterized endoscopic features of the anastomotic site, understanding of which is essential to identify the site, and investigated useful techniques to identify the site and perform cannulation for pancreatography. Furthermore, we showed the safety and usefulness of endoscopic dilatation for anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy according to our three cases and a review of the literature.

Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) provides the unique opportunity to visualize, interrogate and intervene gastrointestinal (GI) luminal, mural or peri-luminal structures and pathology with negligible adverse effects. Diagnostic, upper GI and rectal EUS is feasible, extremely safe, and efficacious. Most EUS guided interventions are safe, effective and minimally invasive, compared to peers in the percutaneous radiological or surgical procedures. As with any endoscopic procedure, EUS and its guided interventions may be accompanied by adverse events. EUS related complications are generally infrequent in expert hands, and mainly include bleeding and perforation. However, the nature and severity of adverse events associated with each EUS guided procedure are unique. Hence, it is paramount for endosonographer to have sufficient knowledge of the indications, techniques, and potential risks involved before contemplating any given procedure. Most common intervention with EUS is transmural fine needle aspiration (FNA), which is an extremely safe procedure. EUS guided drainage procedures are rapidly evolving with newer devices and methods being employed. Among them, EUS guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collection-pseudocyst or walled off necrosis (WON), has largely replaced other methods (surgical, percutaneous or non-EUS endoscopic) with acceptable complications. Currently, dedicated metal stents are more widely used compared to plastic stents for drainage of PFC, especially WON. EUS has made a definite impact in biliary access and drainage of obstructed biliary system, in patients where ERCP has failed or is technically not possible, closely competing with percutaneous biliary drainage. In spite of some complications, recent improvement in devices for bilio-enteric fistula creation and stent designs, has added to its safety and efficacy. EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage remains the most challenging of EUS guided interventions where in-roads are being made.

Chronic pancreatic pain successfully treated by endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreaticogastrostomy using fully covered self-expandable metallic stent

One of the most common symptoms presenting in patients with chronic pancreatitis is pancreatic-type pain. Obstruction of the main pancreatic duct in chronic pancreatitis can be treated by a multitude of therapeutic approaches, ranging from pharmacologic, endoscopic and radiologic treatments to surgical interventions. When the conservative treatment approaches fail to resolve symptomatic cases, however, endoscopic retrograde pancreatography with pancreatic duct drainage is the preferred second approach, despite its well-recognized drawbacks. When the conventional transpapillary approach fails to achieve the necessary drainage, the patients may benefit from application of the less invasive endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic duct interventions. Here, we describe the case of a 42-year-old man who presented with severe abdominal pain that had lasted for 3 mo. Computed tomography scanning showed evidence of chronic obstructive pancreatitis with pancreatic duct stricture at genu. After conventional endoscopic retrograde pancreaticography failed to eliminate the symptoms, EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (PGS) was applied using a fully covered, self-expandable, 10-mm diameter metallic stent. The treatment resolved the case and the patient experienced no adverse events. EUS-guided PGS with a regular biliary fully covered, self-expandable metallic stent effectively and safely treated pancreatic-type pain in chronic pancreatitis.